äll&lii# tea^fe^^ Hlpll S )lmjm?llii \l ^...ßJ ; 1 : Mtm MaMmg MtJ : f&? ES, ilillllllliiiil QJü-n/^l/ftSWf feisbj 'DlSTMBUfiOi'i ot4i'i;mi;s* Sp 8i s--\ t'/.>->'!spj5;': f»sf» #«1f
GAO United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548 Comptroller General of the United States COMBAT AIR POWER: JOINT MISSION B-272206 ASSESSMENTS NEEDED BEFORE MAKING PROGRAM AND BUDGET September 20,1996 DECISIONS Congressional Committees The Department of Defense plans to spend over $300 billion on programs already in progress to modernize its combat air power capabilities over the next 15 to 20 years. Hundreds of billions of dollars more will likely be required for programs, such as the Joint Strike Fighter, that are still being defined or that can be expected to be started over the next several years. The Department will face difficult decisions as it attempts to cover the high cost of these and other defense acquisitions when the nation is moving toward a balanced budget. This comprehensive report on U.S. air power examines whether the Secretary of Defense has sufficient information from a joint perspective to prioritize programs, objectively weigh the merits of new program investments, and decide whether current programs should receive continued funding. To provide context for this assessment, we summarize major changes in U.S. air power capabilities since 1991 and the broad capabilities of potential adversaries. We build on and synthesize the findings of six individual air power reviews that we conducted over the past 2 years and draw from other GAO reports on air power weapons programs. We believe that our recommendations to the Secretary of Defense, if implemented, would improve the information available to assist in making key decisions on air power plans, programs, and budgets. We are addressing this report to you because of your oversight responsibility for defense issues and budgets and your interest in this important subject. This report was prepared under the direction of Richard Davis, Director, National Security Analysis, who may be reached on (202) 512-8412 if you or your staff have any questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. eimi&ji Charles A. Bowsher Comptroller General of the United States DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A Approved for public release; Distribution Unlimited DTTC QUALITY mspecebb i
B-272206 List of Congressional Committees The Honorable Strom Thurmond Chairman The Honorable Sam Nunn Ranking Minority Member Committee on Armed Services United States Senate The Honorable Ted Stevens Chairman The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations United States Senate The Honorable Floyd Spence Chairman The Honorable Ronald V. Dellums Ranking Minority Member Committee on National Security House of Representatives The Honorable C.W. Bill Young Chairman The Honorable John P. Murtha Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on National Security Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives Page 2
Page 3
Executive Summary Pi lrnnqp ^ ot^er na ti n relies as heavily on combat air power for its military J^ strength or has invested as much in it as the United States. The Department of Defense (DOD) has initiated major acquisition programs estimated to cost over $300 billion to modernize its combat air power forces over the next 15 to 20 years. These forces include about 5,900 fighter and attack aircraft, including long-range bombers equipped for conventional missions and attack helicopters; specialized combat support aircraft; advanced weapons for the combat aircraft; long-range missiles; theater air defense forces; and other key air power assets. Because difficult tradeoff decisions will likely be needed among competing air power programs as the nation moves toward balancing the budget, GAO conducted detailed assessments of six key air power missions 1 to provide information useful to the debate. This culminating report builds on and synthesizes the findings of these six reviews and other GAO reviews of air power programs, GAO'S overall objective was to assess whether the Secretary of Defense has sufficient information from a joint perspective to help him decide whether new investments should be made, whether programmed investments should continue to be funded, and what priority should be given to competing air power programs. To gain a broad perspective on the context in which these decisions are made, GAO sought to determine (1) how U.S. air power capabilities have changed since the end of fiscal year 1991, the year the Persian Gulf War ended; (2) what potential threat adversary forces pose to U.S. air power; (3) what contribution combat air power modernization programs will make to aggregate U.S. capabilities; and (4) how joint warfighting assessments are used to support the Secretary in making air power decisions. Background Title 10 of the U.S. Code and DOD'S functions directive authorize each of the military services to acquire air power assets to meet its responsibilities, DOD'S current air power assets, many of which perform multiple missions, were largely developed through the military services' investments of hundreds of billions of dollars primarily to acquire autonomous combat air power capabilities in preparation for a global war with the Soviet Union. The Air Force acquired bombers to deliver nuclear strikes and fighter and attack aircraft for conventional and theater-nuclear missions in the major land theaters, principally Europe. The Navy built an extensive carrier-based aviation force to control the seas and project power into the Soviet Union's maritime flanks. The Army developed attack 'These include interdiction, air superiority, close support, air refueling, suppression of enemy air defenses, and surveillance and reconnaissance. Page 4
Executive Summary helicopters to provide air support to its ground troops. The Marine Corps acquired fighter and attack aircraft and attack helicopters to support its ground forces in their areas of operation. While each service had many similar capabilities, each also largely operated within its own spheres. Today, the geographic areas of operations for combat air power that characterized much of the Cold War no longer apply. The air power components of the four services are now focused on joint operations with a strategy of preparing to fight two major regional conflicts versus a global war. Most of the likely theaters of operation are small enough that, with available refueling support, all types of aircraft can reach most targets. The individual services have always been the primary players in the acquisition process based on their broad responsibilities to organize, train, and equip their forces under title 10 of the U.S. Code. However, to achieve a stronger joint orientation in DOD, Congress enacted the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. This act gave the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commanders in chief (CINC) of the combatant commands stronger roles in Department matters, including the acquisition process. As principal military adviser to the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman is now expected to advise the Secretary on the priority of requirements identified by the CINCS and the extent to which program recommendations and budget proposals of the military departments conform with these priorities. The Chairman is also expected to submit to the Secretary alternative program recommendations and budget proposals to achieve greater conformance with CINC priorities. Subsequent legislation has given the Chairman additional responsibilities to examine ways DOD can eliminate or reduce duplicative capabilities and to assess military requirements for defense acquisition programs from a joint warfighting military perspective. According to the 1995 National Military Strategy, major modernization programs involving significant investments are to be undertaken "only where there is clearly a substantial payoff." To evaluate the merits of the services' weapon investment proposals, programs, and budgets, various entities within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, such as the Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation, provide the Secretary independent analyses as needed. The Joint Requirements Oversight Council assists the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in carrying out the Chairman's responsibilities. This assistance includes identifying and assessing the priority of joint military requirements (including existing systems and equipment), ensuring that the assignment of program priorities reflects Page 5
Executive Summary projected resource levels, and considering alternatives to any acquisition program identified to meet military needs. A key goal of the Council is to achieve cross-service resource allocations that yield an overall defense capability that is more than the sum of the separate service capabilities. To support the Council and the Chairman, a joint warfighting capabilities assessment process was set up in 1994 to examine key relationships and interactions among warfighting capabilities of the services, including providing insights into joint requirements. T?p«iiilt<3 in Rripf Sufficient information is not being developed from a joint perspective to enable the Secretary of Defense to prioritize programs, objectively weigh the merits of new air power investments, and decide whether current programs should continue to receive funding, DOD has not established joint mission area requirements and compared them to the services' aggregate capabilities. Therefore, it cannot be confident that force structure and modernization decisions will result in the most cost-effective mix of forces to fulfill the National Military Strategy. Reductions in the U.S. inventory of combat aircraft have been largely offset by key enhancements to U.S. air power capabilities. These include performance improvements in combat aircraft such as increases in night-fighting and targeting capabilities and growing inventories of precision munitions for the aircraft and of advanced long-range missiles to attack ground targets. Conversely, the aircraft and air defense forces of potential adversaries have not been substantially improved and do not pose a serious threat to U.S. air power's successful execution of its missions. These nations have considerably smaller forces, and their equipment is generally older and less capable than the U.S. forces' advanced systems. These nations' efforts to modernize their forces will likely continue to be inhibited by declines in the post-cold War arms market, national and international efforts to limit the proliferation of conventional arms, and the high cost of advanced weapons. Because DOD does not routinely develop information on joint mission needs and aggregate capabilities, it has little assurance that decisions to buy, modify, or retire air power systems are sound. The urgent need for such information is underscored by the reality that hundreds of billions of dollars will be required to finance combat air power investment programs as currently planned. Serious concerns about the affordability of these plans within likely defense budgets have been raised. Based on its assessments of air power mission areas and other reviews, GAO concludes Page 6
Executive Summary that DOD is proceeding with some major investments without clear evidence the programs are justified. These assessments indicate that some modernization programs will add only marginally to already formidable capabilities, while the need for others has been lessened by the changed security environment. For some programs, there are viable, less costly alternatives. GAO believes that the Chairman could better advise the Secretary of Defense on air power programs and budgets if he conducted more comprehensive assessments in key mission areas. Broader assessments that tackle the more controversial air power issues would enable the Chairman to better assist the Secretary of Defense to make the difficult trade-off decisions that will likely be required. However, certain long-standing obstacles must be overcome if the key challenges related to air power are to be met head on. The Chairman must be the strong advocate for the joint perspective that the Goldwater-Nichols legislation intended. The well-being of the U.S. military as a whole must be placed above the interests of the individual services. And if circumstances change and program adjustments are needed, the Secretary and the Chairman must be willing to challenge the strong constituencies that develop around major acquisition programs. If DOD is to shape its force smartly within the bounds of likely budgets, existing levels of redundancy in capability must be questioned, and no program, once begun, should be considered irrevocable. Principal Findings Despite Downsizing, U.S. Air Power Capabilities Remain Formidable The United States has made many significant improvements to its combat air power capabilities in recent years. Although DOD has reduced its total combat aircraft about 28 percent since the end of the Persian Gulf War, the military services continue to retain about 5,900 advanced combat aircraft. These aircraft are increasingly being supplemented by other air power assets such as long-range cruise missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, and theater air defense forces. Many of the services' combat aircraft have multimission capabilities that allow combatant commanders greater flexibility in employing aviation assets. The aircraft are also more capable of autonomous navigation, night fighting, target acquisition, self-protection, and the use of advanced Page 7
Executive Summary munitions, vital attributes based on experiences in the Gulf War. The inventory of precision air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons carried by these aircraft is also being significantly expanded and improved. Additionally, DOD has more than tripled its inventory of long-range missiles to attack ground targets and has improved the range and accuracy of many of them. Funds are also being spent to advance U.S. forces' ability to identify targets and communicate information quickly to combatant units. These advances are expected to further enhance the capabilities of current forces. Figure 1 highlights several significant advances in U.S. air power capabilities since fiscal year 1991. Page 8
Executive Summary Figure 1: Increases in Key U.S. Combat Air Power Capabilities Since the End of Fiscal Year 1991 Long-range missiles 2,662 Night-capable aircraft PGM-capable aircraft 707 500 _L 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 _L Note: Long-range missiles include the Tomahawk cruise missile and the Army Tactical Missile System. Night-fighting aircraft include new and existing aircraft equipped with infrared detection devices or with cockpits that permit use of night-vision goggles. The precision-guided munition (PGM)-capable aircraft include new or existing aircraft equipped to autonomously employ PGMs using laser designators. Potential Adversaries' Capabilities Are Likely to Remain Limited Although potential adversaries possess capabilities that threaten U.S. air power missions, the severity of these threats appears to be limited. Potential adversaries' air defense capabilities cannot currently prevent U.S. air power from achieving müitary objectives. Their conventional offensive air power capabilities are judged to be limited until at least early in the next century. Projections are that the countries in question are likely to improve their defensive and offensive capabilities only marginally over at least the next 10 years. Page 9
Executive Summary Because most potential adversaries lack the ability to develop and produce high technology weapons, they must import weapons to modernize their forces. However, they are likely to be inhibited from procuring advanced weapons due to changes in the post-cold War arms market, national and international efforts to limit proliferation of conventional arms, and the high cost of advanced weapons. Shortfalls in training, maintenance, logistics, and doctrine further constrain potential adversaries' capabilities. Costly Modernization Programs Planned Without Sufficient Analysis of Needs and Capabilities The services are proceeding with costly acquisition programs to attain greater capabilities in mission areas where U.S. capabilities are already substantial. The long-range modernization of DOD'S combat air power centers on four extremely expensive aircraft development programs the Navy's $81 billion, 1,000-plane F/A-18E/F fighter/attack aircraft; the Air Force's $70 billion, 438-plane F-22 air superiority fighter; the Army's $45 billion, 1,292-plane Comanche armed reconnaissance helicopter; and the Air Force/Navy 2,978-plane Joint Strike Fighter that is still being defined. Based on DOD'S goals for the Joint Strike Fighter, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the program could cost $165 billion, excluding inflation. Table 1 summarizes acquisition cost estimates for combat aircraft, weapons (including PGMS, theater air defense weapons, and close support artillery), and support systems such as surveillance and reconnaissance assets. (A more detailed list is in app. DI.) Table 1: Estimated Costs of Major Air Power Modernization Programs Then-year dollars in billions Program Through fiscal year 1996 Fiscal year 1997 to end of program Total F/A-18E/F $4.9 $76.1 $81.0 F-22 14.0 56.1 70.1 Comanche 3.1 41.7 44.8 Longbow Apache 1.9 6.4 8.3 B-1 bomber modifications 1.3 2.5 3.8 AV-8B remanufacture 0.5 1.8 2.3 Weapons 30.5 45.7 76.2 Combat support 7.4 9.2 16.6 Total $63.6 $239.5 $303.1 a a Joint Strike Fighter is not included in this table because DOD has not yet estimated its total program cost. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the program could cost about $165 billion in 1997 dollars. Page 10
Executive Summary DOD faces a major challenge in attempting to pay for all of the programs as planned. While DOD believes these modernization plans are affordable, a 1996 Congressional Budget Office analysis of the F/A-18E/F, F-22, and Joint Strike Fighter costs and likely funding available for these programs raises serious doubts and indicates that about $3 billion (1997 dollars) more will be required annually than may be available during the period 2002-2020. DOD has not sufficiently assessed joint mission requirements and is therefore not well-positioned to determine the need for and priority of its planned investments. Major force structure and planning decisions have been made without completed analyses of the services' qualitative and quantitative requirements and capabilities to conduct combat air power missions. A dearth of information on joint mission needs and aggregate capabilities to meet those needs prevents a definitive answer as to whether DOD'S air power modernization programs are justified. However, based on past GAO reviews of individual air power systems and available information collected on its six mission reviews, GAO believes that DOD is proceeding with some major modernization programs without clear evidence that they are justified. Available information indicates that the current forces in some mission areas already provide combatant commanders with formidable capabilities. For example, the services already have at least 10 ways to hit 65 percent of the thousands of expected ground targets in two major regional conflicts. In addition, service interdiction assets can provide 140 to 160 percent coverage for many types of targets. Despite their numerous overlapping, often redundant, interdiction capabilities, the services plan to acquire aircraft and other weapons over the next 15 to 20 years that will further enhance their interdiction capabilities. This includes major modifications to the Air Force's fleet of 95 B-1B bombers to enable them to deliver conventional weapons. The changed security environment appears to have lessened the need to proceed with some programs as planned. For example, despite the United States' unmatched air-to-air combat capabilities, the Air Force plans to begin production of its next generation fighter the $111 million F-22 in 1998, with rapid increases in the production rate to follow. The F-22 program was initiated to meet the projected Soviet threat of the mid-1990s. The severity of the threat in terms of quantities and capabilities has declined and potential adversaries have few fighters that could challenge the F-15, the current U.S. frontline fighter. Page n
Executive Summary For some highly expensive modernization programs, viable, less costly alternatives are available. In these cases, the payoff in terms of added mission capability considering the investment required does not appear to be clearly substantial as mandated by the National Military Strategy. For example, the Navy F/A-18E/F's expected range, carrier recovery payload, and survivability will be only marginally improved over that of the less costly F/A-18C/D model. Joint Warfighting Assessments Need to Be More Comprehensive DOD has taken steps to improve the information the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have to assess air power plans, programs, and budgets. To enhance the information available on combat requirements and capabilities, DOD has initiated major studies related to deep attack weapons, close support of ground forces, reconnaissance forces, and electronic warfare. It also expanded the role of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council and established 10 joint warfighting capability assessment teams to support the deliberations of the Council. These assessment teams have identified ways to improve the interoperability of forces in joint operations, and their assessments have contributed to some decisions that could help to avoid future levels of redundancy. However, the assessment teams thus far have had little impact in identifying unneeded overlaps and duplication in existing capabilities or in weighing the relative merits of alternative ways to recapitalize U.S. air power forces, GAO also found little evidence that the Council, with the support of the assessment teams, has developed specific proposals to shift resources among the services to enhance total force capability. Certain obstacles must be overcome to improve the information flowing from a joint perspective. For example, DOD acknowledges that its current analytical tools, such as computer models and war games, need to be improved if they are to be effectively used in analyzing joint warfighting. Also, assessments that could threaten service plans and budgets are frequently avoided, and the potential effects of program reductions or cancellations on careers, jobs, and the industrial base inhibit serious consideration of program alternatives. Finally, the desire to gain the consensus of the services sometimes inhibits decisions that could better integrate service capabilities along mission fines, GAO acknowledges that more comprehensive assessments will not, by themselves, solve these long-standing problems. Major changes in outlook throughout the Department are also needed. Page 12
Executive Summary Recommendations To ensure the future viability of U.S. air power, the Secretary of Defense will need to make decisions in at least two critical areas how best to reduce duplications and overlaps in existing capabilities without unacceptable effects on force capabilities and how to recapitalize the force in the most cost-effective way. To make such decisions, the Secretary must have better information from a joint perspective. Accordingly, GAO recommends that the Secretary, along with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, develop an assessment process that yields more comprehensive information in key mission areas. This can be done by broadening the current joint warfare capabilities assessment process or developing an alternative mechanism. To be of most value, such assessments should be done on a continuing basis and should, at a minimum, (1) assess total joint warfighting requirements in each mission area; (2) inventory aggregate service capabilities, including the full range of assets available to carry out each mission; (3) compare aggregate capabilities to joint requirements to identify shortages or excesses, taking into consideration existing and projected capabilities of potential adversaries and the sufficiency of existing capabilities to meet joint requirements; (4) determine the most cost-effective means to satisfy any shortages; and (5) where excesses exist, assess the relative merits of retiring alternative assets, reducing procurement quantities, or canceling acquisition programs. The assessments also need to examine the projected impact of investments, retirements, and cancellations on other mission areas, since some assets contribute to multiple missions. Because the Chairman is to advise the Secretary on joint military requirements and provide programmatic advice on how best to provide joint warfighting capabilities within projected resource levels, the assessment process needs to help the Chairman determine program priorities across mission lines. To enhance the effectiveness of the assessments, GAO also recommends that the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman decide how best to provide analytical support to the assessment teams, ensure staff continuity, and allow the teams the latitude to examine the full range of air power issues. Agency Comments and GAO's Evaluation In written comments (see app. IV) on a draft of this report, DOD partially concurred with GAO'S recommendations. While DOD said it disagreed with many of GAO'S findings, most ofthat disagreement centered on two principal points: (1) the Secretary of Defense is not receiving adequate advice, particularly from a joint perspective, to support decision-making Page 13
Executive Summary on combat air power programs, and (2) ongoing major combat aircraft acquisition programs lack sufficient analysis of needs and capabilities. DOD said it has taken many steps in recent years to improve the extent and quality of joint military advice and cited the joint warfighting capability assessment process as an example. It said the Secretary and Deputy Secretary receive comprehensive advice on combat air power programs through DOD'S planning, programming, and budgeting system and systems acquisition process. The Department's response noted that both the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff scrutinize major acquisition programs and that joint military force assessments and recommendations are provided, DOD acknowledged that the quality of analytical support can be improved but said that the extent of support available has not been insufficient for decision-making. GAO acknowledges that steps have been taken to provide improved joint advice to the Secretary and that DOD decision support systems provide information for making decisions on major acquisition programs, GAO does not believe, however, the information is comprehensive enough to support resource allocation decisions across service and mission lines. Much of the information is developed by the individual services and is limited in scope. Only a very limited amount of information is available on joint requirements for performing missions, such as interdiction and close support, and on the aggregate capabilities available to meet those requirements, DOD'S initiation of the deep attack weapons mix study and, more recently, a study to assess close support capabilities suggests that DOD is, in fact, beginning to seek more comprehensive information about cross-service needs and capabilities, as our recommendation suggests. While joint warfighting capability assessment teams have been established, DOD is not using these teams to identify unnecessary or overly redundant combat air power capabilities among the services. Moreover, DOD has not used the teams to help develop specific proposals or strategies to recapitalize U.S. air power forces, a major combat air power issue identified by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Information on issues such as recapitalization alternatives and redundancies in capabilities, developed from a joint warfighting perspective, could be invaluable to decisionmakers who must allocate defense resources among competing needs to achieve maximum force effectiveness. GAO believes that the services conduct considerable analyses to identify mission needs and justify new weapons program proposals. These needs analyses, however, are not based on assessments of the aggregate Page 14
Executive Summary capabilities of the services to perform warfighting missions, and DOD does not routinely review service modernization proposals and programs from such a perspective. The Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces made similar observations. Typically, service analyses tend to justify specific modernization programs by showing the additional capabilities they could provide rather than assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative means of meeting an identified need. Additionally, under DOD'S requirements generation process, only program proposals that meet DOD'S major defense acquisition program criteria are reviewed and validated by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council. Many service modernization proposals and programs do not meet these criteria p age is
Contents Executive Summary Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2 U.S. Air Power Is Formidable and Improving Chapter 3 Capabilities of Potential Adversaries Are Limited and Will Likely Be Slowly Improved Chapter 4 Air Power Modernization Programs Are Not Based on Joint Assessments U.S. Combat Air Power Key Guidance Affecting Combat Air Power Forces DOD Roles and Responsibilities Objectives, Scope, and Methodology Combat Air Power Force Structure Has Been Changing Combat Air Power Capabilities Continue to Be Improved Specialized Aircraft Are Receiving Upgrades Integration and Interoperability Offer Enhancement Across Mission Areas Conclusions Current Threats to U.S. Air Power Are Limited Arms Transfers Are Down in a Market Now Dominated by United States and Its Allies High Costs and Export Restrictions May Limit Advances in Capability A Capable Force Requires More Than Advanced Weapons Conclusions Planned Investments Pose a Financial Challenge DOD Has Planned Major Investments Without Adequately Defined Requirements Some Investments Are Proceeding Without Clear Justification Additional Capability May Not Be Needed in Some Mission Areas Conclusions 20 20 21 22 24 26 26 32 36 38 39 40 40 42 46 48 48 49 49 51 53 53 58 Page 16
Contents Chapter 5 Decisions on Air Power Programs and Priorities Require Comprehensive Joint Assessments Chapter 6 Conclusions, Recommendations, and Agency Comments and Our Evaluation Appendixes Key Defense Legislation Has Sought to Better Integrate the Military Forces New Oversight Process Has Had a Limited Impact DOD Must Overcome Certain Obstacles to Achieve a Stronger Joint Orientation Conclusions Conclusions Recommendations Agency Comments and Our Evaluation Appendix I: Combat Air Power Systems 80 Appendix II: Aircraft Inventory Levels (1991 and 1996) 82 Appendix III: Major Combat Air Power Program Funding Status 84 Appendix IV: Comments From the Department of Defense 85 Appendix V: Major Contributors to This Report 91 60 60 63 68 71 73 73 75 76 Related GAO Products Tables Table 1: Estimated Costs of Major Air Power Modernization Programs Table 1.1: Major General Purpose Forces Specified by the Bottom-Up Review and the Approximate Number of Associated Combat Aircraft 95 10 21 Figures Figure 1: Increases in Key U.S. Combat Air Power Capabilities 9 Since the End of Fiscal Year 1991 Figure 2.1: Changes in DOD Fighter and Attack Aircraft 27 Inventory, Fiscal Years 1991 through 1996 Figure 2.2: Changes in Army and Marine Corps Attack Helicopter 29 Inventory Figure 2.3: Fiscal Year 1996 Specialized Aircraft Inventories as a 31 Percent of Fiscal Year 1991 Inventories Page 17
Contents Figure 2.4: Increase in Night Fighting Capability Since Fiscal Year 1991 Figure 3.1: Trend in the Worldwide Transfer of Conventional Arms Figure 3.2: Arms Transfer Deliveries to the Middle East by Source Figure 3.3: Agreements for Future Deliveries to the Middle East by Source Figure 5.1: How the JROC Assists the Chairman Figure 5.2: Joint Warfighting Capability Assessment Areas 33 43 44 45 64 65 Abbreviations ACDA Arms Control and Disarmament Agency ATACMS Army Tactical Missile System CBO Congressional Budget Office cinc commanders in chief COCOM coordinating committee DOD Department of Defense GAO General Accounting Office HARM High Speed Anti-radiation Missile JDAM Joint Direct Attack Munition JROC Joint Requirements Oversight Council JSOW Joint Stand-off Weapon JWCA Joint Warfighting Capability Assessment LANTIRN low altitude navigation targeting infrared for night NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense PGM precision-guided munition SEAD suppression of enemy air defenses Page 18
Page 19
Chapter 1 Introduction Air power has played a pivotal role in America's military force since World War I when aircraft were first used in combat. In World War n, it was indispensable to U.S. forces to achieve victory. After the war, the Department of the Navy invested in longer-range aircraft and larger aircraft carriers to provide worldwide coverage from the sea. With the proven success of air power and development of the intercontinental-range bomber, the Department of the Air Force was established in 1947, with the Air Force taking its place alongside the other three services. During the Cold War, America's air power was a critical element of both its nuclear deterrent forces and its conventional combat forces. A massive U.S. aerospace industry developed, giving the United States a research, development, and production base that has dramatically advanced airframes, propulsion, avionics, weapons, and communications, and helped shape and broaden the role of air power in U.S. military strategy. Today the Department of Defense (DOD) has what some refer to as the "four air forces," with each of the services possessing large numbers of aircraft. Air power includes not only fixed-wing aircraft but also attack helicopters, long-range missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, and other assets that give the United States the ability to maintain air superiority and to project power worldwide through the air. During the Persian Gulf War, the unparalleled capabilities of these forces were demonstrated as U.S. and coalition forces dominated the conflict. Sweeping changes in the global threat environment, sizable reductions in resources devoted to defense, technological advancements in combat systems, and other factors have significantly affected DOD'S combat air power. Ensuring that the most cost-effective mix of combat air power capabilities is identified, developed, and fielded in such an environment to meet the needs of the combatant commanders is a major challenge. U.S. Combat Air Power In October 1993, DOD reported on its bottom-up review of defense needs in the post-cold War security environment. The review outlined specific dangers to U.S. interests, strategies to deal with the dangers, an overall defense strategy for the new era, and force structure requirements. The strategy called on the military to be prepared to fight and win two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts, engage in smaller-scale operations, meet overseas presence requirements, and deter attacks by weapons of mass destruction. Table 1.1 shows the overall size and structure of the general purpose forces DOD determined are needed to execute the strategy Page 20
Chapter 1 Introduction and the approximate number of associated combat aircraft, DOD currently has about 5,900 such aircraft as it continues drawing down its forces. Table 1.1: Major General Purpose Forces Specified by the Bottom-Up Review and the Approximate Number of Associated Combat Aircraft Service Major combat forces Number of aircraft Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force 10 Active divisions 15 Reserve enhanced readiness brigades 11 Active carriers 1 Reserve carrier 10 Active carrier air wings 1 Reserve carrier air wing 3 Marine expeditionary forces 13 Active fighter wings 7 Reserve fighter wings Long-range bombers 1,800 Attack and armed reconnaissance helicopters 800 Fighter and attack aircraft 550 Attack aircraft and helicopters 2,200 Fighter and attack aircraft 184 Bombers In addition to these fighter and attack aircraft, DOD has other important combat aviation elements, including over 1,500 specialized support aircraft, such as those used for refueling, command and control, reconnaissance, and suppressing enemy air defenses, and about 250 aircraft in its special operations forces. Appendix I identifies the principal aircraft, long-range missiles, and other weapons and assets that were covered by our review. Key Guidance Affecting Combat Air Power Forces Two key DOD documents that provide guidance concerning the planning for and use of combat air power are the Secretary of Defense's Defense Planning Guidance and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs current National Military Strategy dated 1995. These documents build on the strategy, plans, and programs identified in the Bottom-Up Review. According to the Defense Planning Guidance and the National Military Strategy, U.S. forces, in concert with regional allies, are to be of sufficient size and capabilities to credibly deter and, if necessary, decisively defeat aggression by projecting and sustaining U.S. power during two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts. The services' forces are also expected to be prepared to fight as a joint team, with each service providing trained and ready forces to support the commanders in chief (CINC) of the combatant commands. U.S. air power is to be able to seize and control the skies, hold vital enemy capabilities at risk throughout the theater, and help destroy the enemy's ability to wage war. Air power is also expected to provide sustained, precision firepower; reconnaissance Page 21
Chapter 1 Introduction and surveillance; refueling; and global lift. The ability of combat aircraft to respond quickly to regional contingencies makes them particularly important in the post-cold War era Both documents discuss the criticality of enhancements to existing systems and the selected modernization of forces to DOD'S ability to carry out the military strategy. Each expresses concerns about upgrading and replacing weapon systems and equipment under constrained budgets. In recognition of the costly recapitalization planned and the projected budgetary resources to support it, the Chairman's strategy states that major modernization programs involving significant investment are to be undertaken "only where there is clearly a substantial payoff." A new document Joint Vision 2010 provides the military services a common direction in developing their capabilities within a joint framework. Like the guidance and strategy documents, the vision document cites the need for more efficient use of defense resources. It stresses the imperativeness of jointness of integrating service capabilities with less redundancy in and among the services if the United States is to retain effectiveness when faced with flat budgets and increasingly more costly readiness and modernization. DOD Roles and Responsibilities The authority of the military departments to acquire air power and other assets stems from their broad legislative responsibilities to prepare forces for the effective prosecution of war (Title 10 U.S. Code), DOD Directive 5100.1, which identifies the functions of the DOD and its major components, authorizes the military departments to develop and procure weapons, equipment, and supplies essential to fulfilling their assigned functions. Under the directive, the Army's primary functions include the preparation of forces to defeat enemy land forces and seize, occupy, and defend land areas; the Navy's and/or Marine Corps' functions include the preparation of forces to gain and maintain general naval supremacy and prosecute a naval campaign; and the Air Force, the preparation of forces to gain and maintain air supremacy and air interdiction of enemy land forces and communications. The Marine Corps is also expected to conduct amphibious operations. All services are authorized to develop capabilities to attack land targets through the air to accomplish their primary missions. 1 The directive also states that the military departments are to fulfill the current and future operational requirements of the combatant 'For a more detailed discussion of service roles, missions and functions, see Roles and Functions of U.S. Combat Forces: Past, Present, and Prospects, Congressional Research Service, Report No. 93-72S, Jan. 21,1993. Page 22
Chapter 1 Introduction commands to the maximum extent practical; present and justify their respective positions on DOD plans, programs, and policies; cooperate effectively with one another; provide for more effective, efficient, and economical administration; and ehminate duplication. The individual services have always had the primary role in weapons acquisition. In an attempt to strengthen the joint orientation of the Department, Congress enacted the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. This act, which amended title 10, gave the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combatant commanders stronger roles in Department matters, including weapons acquisition. It designated the Chairman as principal müitary adviser to the President, the National Security Council, and the Secretary of Defense and gave him several broad authorities. For example, the Chairman is expected to provide for strategic direction of the armed forces, prepare strategic plans, perform net assessments of the capabilities of U.S. and allied armed forces compared with those of potential adversaries, and advise the Secretary on the requirements, programs, and budgets of the müitary departments in terms of the joint perspective. Regarding this latter responsibility, the Chairman is expected to (1) provide advice on the priorities of requirements identified by the commanders of the combatant commands, (2) determine the extent to which program recommendations and budget proposals conform with the combatant commands' priorities, (3) submit alternative program recommendations and budget proposals within projected resource levels to achieve greater conformance with these priorities, and (4) assess military requirements for major defense acquisition programs. In addition to these responsibilities, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1993 directed the Chairman to examine what DOD can do to ehminate or reduce duplicative capabilities. Assisting the Chairman in providing the Secretary advice on military requirements and the programs and budgets of the müitary departments is the Joint Requirements Oversight Councü (JROC) and the Joint Staff, which are subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Chairman. Within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Office of the Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation provides, in part, analytical support to the Secretary in the management and oversight of service programs and budgets. Page 23
Chapter 1 Introduction Objectives, Scope, and Methodology The overall objective of this review was to assess whether the Secretary of Defense has sufficient information from a joint perspective to help him decide whether new investments in combat air power should be made, whether programmed investments should continue to be funded, and what priority should be given to competing programs. To gain a broad perspective on the context in which these decisions are made, we sought to determine (1) how U.S. air power capabilities have changed since the end of fiscal year 1991; (2) what potential threat adversary forces pose to U.S. air power; (3) what contribution combat air power modernization programs will make to aggregate U.S. capabilities; and (4) how joint warfighting assessments are used to support the Secretary in making air power decisions. The scope of our review included (1) fighter and attack aircraft, including attack helicopters and long-range bombers equipped for conventional missions; (2) key specialized support aircraft that enhance the capability of combat aircraft; (3) munitions employed by combat aircraft; and (4) other major systems particularly long-range missiles, theater air defense systems, and unmanned aerial vehicles that perform missions traditionally assigned to combat aircraft. Our scope did not encompass assets dedicated primarily to airlift, such as the C-17 and V-22 aircraft, and U.S. special operations forces. Also, the potential contribution of allied forces was not considered. We reviewed in detail six key mission areas in which combat air power plays a prominent role: performing offensive and defensive operations to achieve and maintain air superiority in areas of combat operations, interdicting enemy forces before they can be used against friendly forces, providing close support for ground forces by attacking hostile forces in close proximity to friendly forces, suppressing enemy air defenses by jamming or destroying enemy air defense forces, refueling combat aircraft in the air to sustain combat operations, and performing surveillance and reconnaissance to obtain intelligence data for combat operations. In conducting these reviews, we reviewed numerous reports, studies, and other documents containing information on these missions and the primary platforms and weapons used. We discussed capabilities, requirements, force structure, and modernization issues with officials and Page 24
Chapter 1 Introduction representatives of various offices within OSD, the Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military services, and the operational commands. We compared and contrasted performance data on current and planned weapon systems by mission area to acquire a good understanding of the joint capabilities of the mihtary forces to perform the missions and to identify overlaps and gaps in capabilities. Separate reports on the interdiction, close support, suppression of enemy air defenses, and air refueling reviews have already been issued, while our reports on air superiority and surveillance and reconnaissance are still being prepared. A listing of the four issued reports and of other GAO reports related to this body of work is included at the end of this report. We supplemented the six mission reviews with more detailed assessments of (1) recent and planned changes in the capabilities of U.S. forces and of the current and projected capabilities of potential adversaries to counter U.S. air power and (2) the mihtary advice on joint requirements and capabilities being developed through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the Secretary of Defense. For information on changes in U.S. capabilities, we drew upon information gathered on the six mission reviews. We also used examples from our other published reports on major DOD modernization programs to illustrate our findings. For information on current and projected capabilities of potential adversaries, we reviewed reports of the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, and Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and discussed threat information with intelligence agency personnel. To assess information being developed for the Secretary of Defense on joint air power requirements and aggregate capabilities of the services to meet those requirements, we evaluated the JROC and its supporting joint warfighting capabilities assessment (JWCA) process, which assist the Chairman in carrying out his responsibilities. We discussed the functioning of this process and air power issues being examined with Joint Staff officials who oversee the process as well as assessment team representatives from the Joint Staff and OSD. We reviewed the May 1995 report by the independent Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces. 2 We also discussed the report with Commission staff and reviewed documents the Commission developed or acquired. We conducted this review from May 1994 through June 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. directions for Defense (Report of the Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces, May 24,1995). Page 25
Chapter 2 U.S. Air Power Is Formidable and Improving While force downsizing may give the appearance of a loss in capability, the United States continues to retain in its conventional inventory about 5,900 modern fighter and attack aircraft, including 178 long-range bombers and 1,732 attack helicopters, and over 1,500 specialized support aircraft. It also has growing inventories of advanced precision air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons for its combat aircraft to carry and an expanding arsenal of accurate long-range surface-to-surface missiles to strike ground targets. Inventory levels for the aircraft included in our review are shown in appendix II. DOD has spent billions of dollars in recent years to make its current frontline combat aircraft and helicopters more efficient and effective. These enhancements include improved navigation, night fighting, target acquisition, and self-protection capabilities as well as more aircraft capable of using advanced munitions. Specialized support aircraft used for air refueling and surveillance and reconnaissance, which are vital to the effectiveness of combat aircraft, have also been improved, while forces for suppressing enemy air defenses are being restructured. Additionally, advances in the ability of U.S. forces to identify targets and communicate that information quickly to combatant units should further enhance the capabilities of current forces. Combat Air Power Force Structure Has Been Changing Fighter and Attack Aircraft Inventories Are Smaller The size and composition of the U.S. combat air power force structure have changed considerably since fiscal year 1991, the year the Persian Gulf War ended. Cutbacks in the number of combat aircraft adopted by the Bush administration and further cutbacks by the Clinton administration in its 1993 Bottom-Up Review are scheduled to be completed in 1997. While the number of fighter and attack aircraft, including B-1B bombers and attack helicopters, is being reduced about 28 percent from 1991 levels, other new and emerging elements of combat air power, such as long-range missiles and theater air defense forces, have grown in number and capability. Specialized support aircraft have experienced varying levels of change in their inventory. Changes in aviation needs since the end of the Cold War, coupled with cuts in defense spending, have led DOD to reduce its combat aircraft inventory. These changes have been most pronounced for Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps fixed-wing fighter and attack aircraft and Air Force bombers from about 6,400 in 1991 to about 4,160 in 1996. DOD considers about 65 percent of these aircraft as authorized to combat units to perform Page 26
Chapter 2 U.S. Air Power Is Formidable and Improving basic combat missions and 35 percent of them as backup aircraft maintained for training, testing, maintenance, and attrition replacement reserves. Figure 2.1 shows the change in the total inventories of these types of aircraft from 1991 to 1996. Figure 2.1: Changes in DOD Fighter and Attack Aircraft Inventory, Fiscal Years 1991 Through 1996 Aircraft inventory 7,000 6,000 1991 1992 1993 1994 Fiscal year 1995 1996 ll Air Force M Navy and Marine Corps Note: Figures are as of the end of the fiscal year. Figures for 1996 are projections. This smaller combat force structure has been accomplished primarily by retiring older aircraft that are often expensive to operate and maintain, such as the Navy and Marine Corps A-6 medium bomber and A-7 light attack plane and the Air Force A-7, F-4 fighter, and F-lll strike aircraft. At the same time, many newer model aircraft have entered the fleet since the Page 27
Chapter 2 U.S. Air Power Is Formidable and Improving Persian Gulf War, including about 70 F-15E strike fighters, about 250 F-16 multimission fighters, and 200 F/A-18 fighter and attack aircraft. Changes in inventory levels by aircraft model are shown in appendix II. Some important capabilities are being retired as these older aircraft are removed from the inventory. For example, the Navy will lose the payload, range, and all-weather capability of the A-6, and the Air Force will lose the speed and nighttime-precision bombing capability of the F-lll. DOD believes, however, that it can do without these assets, given the dangers it expects to face and the high costs of upgrades, operations, and support that it can avoid by retiring these aircraft. Attack helicopter inventories have fallen only 4 percent 1,811 to 1,732. Many of the older helicopters in the 1991 inventory have been replaced by newer more capable ones. The Army has added about 150 AH-64A Apache attack helicopters and nearly 300 OH-58D Kiowa Warrior armed reconnaissance helicopters to its fleet, and the Marine Corps has added over 70 AH-1W Cobras to its fleet. At the same time, both services have retired nearly 600 older AH-1 Cobras. Figure 2.2 shows attack helicopter inventory changes. Page 28
Chapter 2 U.S. Air Power Is Formidable and Improving Figure 2.2: Changes in Army and Marine Corps Attack Helicopter Inventory Attack helicopter inventory 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 1993 1994 Fiscal year 1996 M Army Ü Marine Corps Long-Range Missile Inventories Increasing From fiscal years 1991 through 1996, about $4.5 billion was appropriated to acquire long-range missiles, and the combined inventories of these missiles more than tripled from 1,133 to over 3,750. (This does not include conventional air-launched cruise missiles as inventory data on those weapons is classified.) The Navy Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile and the Army tactical missile system (ATACMS) have been used to attack a variety of fixed targets, including air defense and communications sites, often in high-threat environments. The Gulf War and subsequent contingency operations, including, most recently, September 1996 attacks on Iraqi military installations, have demonstrated that long-range missiles can carry out some of the missions of strike aircraft while they reduce the risk of pilot losses and aircraft attrition. Page 29